Texas legislator's proposal would make turn signals optional for some drivers

By Ken Herman kherman@statesman.com

Thursday

Mar 7, 2019 at 3:16 PMMar 7, 2019 at 3:18 PM

COMMENTARY — You know what’s easy? Coming up with a proposed solution to a problem everybody knows exists. You know what’s less easy? Coming up with a proposed solution to a problem just about nobody knows exists.

And that, dear friends, is why God gave us the Texas Legislature.

What your lawmakers do affects your daily life.

You know the burdensome hassle of having to activate a turn signal every time you make a turn? Ugh, so onerous. You have to move a hand from the steering wheel and muster the energy to push the turn-signal lever up or down. And, for some, there’s the additional burden of having to look in the owner’s manual to remember which way is the left blinker and which way is the right blinker. (Hey, I’m proud of myself.)

Frankly, why is it anyone’s business where you’re going? You don’t know what kind of creep is going to follow you. Overbearing, overreaching overregulation. That’s what the mandatory turn signal law is. Darned socialists.

But now, thanks to a Houston-area legislator, a solution is at hand. Meet House Bill 2717. And it’s amazing that there were more than 2,700 ideas worthy of bills before this one was thrown in the hopper. It’s not total relief from the burden of turn signaling, but it’s a start.

The Texas Transportation Code states: “An operator intending to turn a vehicle left or right shall signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet of movement of the vehicle before the turn.”

I’ve found that many Texans are aware of and obey this law. Not every Texan, but probably close to a plurality.

HB 2717 would make a simple change, inserting an exception even the intern who sits across from me immediately recognized as potentially nettlesome: “An operator intending to turn a vehicle left or right from a lane that is not marked as requiring a turn in the direction of the intended turn shall signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet of movement of the vehicle before the turn.”

If HB 2717 becomes law — and even the sponsor is unsure if that’s a good idea — you no longer would have to signal a turn from a designated turn lane, thus conserving the human energy needed to activate the appropriate signal and extending the useful life of your turn-signal bulbs.

What’s the harm, we must ask, in letting the driver behind you know that you indeed are aware you’re in a mandatory turn lane and you plan to execute the mandated turn? As the intern insightfully noted, how can we be sure that oncoming traffic is aware you’re in a mandatory turn lane? Why leave them guessing? It’s dangerous enough out there.

For answers, let’s turn (with the appropriate signal) to bill sponsor Rep. Sam Harless, R-Spring, who knows something about cars. He and his wife, former Rep. Patricia Harless, R-Spring, own Houston’s Fred Fincher Motors where “If you have had a foreclosure, bankruptcy, divorce or repossession and your bank turned you down, then turn to Fred Fincher Motors.”

HB 2717 falls in the constituent-suggested category that brings us some of the worst ideas for laws. This one, it turns out, came from someone who used to make laws.

“I’m carrying the bill for a constituent, which is what we’re elected to do.” Harless told me, declining to identify the constituent other than to say he’s a former House member and judge. I have a pretty good idea who Harless is talking about, but I couldn’t contact that person Wednesday for confirmation.

Totally unsurprisingly, this constituent was upset about getting a ticket for not signaling a left turn from a left-turn lane. I see why he’d be upset, but I also don’t see much upside in not making drivers signal a turn from a designated turn lane. I do see some potential downside.

So does Brian Purcell of San Antonio. He calls himself the Texas Highwayman and he has some informed opinions about such matters.

Writes Powell: “It might seem logical that if you are in a turn-only lane, you don’t need to signal your turn. ... (But) there is no exception for turn-only lanes. The reason is simple: while it may be obvious to you and to the guy behind you that you are in a turn-only lane, it may not be evident to motorists or pedestrians across the intersection or on the intersecting road. Using your turn-signal clearly indicates to everyone who may need to know that you are going to turn.”

Harless gets that, too. He paused for a moment when I asked him why we shouldn’t have to signal all turns, including, out of an abundance of caution, those from designated turn lanes.

“I’m OK if it doesn’t go,” he said of his bill. “It’s not something I’m adamant about. ... My concern is it’s going to cause confusion for people, and that’s what I told (the constituent). I’m not that sold on the bill at all.”

And Harless said, “It’s not a life-and-death issue to me.”

Seems like it could be to someone on the road.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.